Carlos
I must confess I have never aligned graphic design with printing.
When I worked in graphic design practice, designing for print was one
aspect, but doing a pedestrian signage project did not involve printing at
all: that entailed more an understanding of issues such as how legible ITC
Stone might be when etched out of aluminium.
Graphic design then required handling lots of media, analogue and
increasingly digital, but I learned about graphic design as not being a
media specific practice. I could handle an F pencil, use a scalpel, paint
perfectly flat gouache, type an estimate, take a photograph, draw an idea
and eventually use software to produce digital visualisations, but I never
ran a Heidelberg press.
For a view of graphic design not so aligned with printing, see:
Moles, A. M. (1989). "The legibility of the world: a project of graphic
design", in V. Margolin, (ed.), Design discourse : history, theory,
criticism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 119129.
It's not a great translation, but opens up a way of thinking about graphic
design, perhaps rather than Graphic Design, different to that portrayed by
the people you suggest below.
I think Moles was a psychologist.
Regards, Robert
Robert Harland
School of the Arts
Loughborough University
On 25/09/2014 22:41, "Carlos Pires" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>1. On one hand, "graphic" can be too constraining from a branding point
>of view, because people see us as designers "for print".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|